Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
Next: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
From: glird on 28 Oct 2009 17:15 On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote > > > On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated events? > > > An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"? > > Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate. If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right. Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both directions, you can synchronise clocks with it. That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Here's what it actually means: IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, then your definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space, then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of motion and at c+v in the return direction, Givwn that, as in Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for them to be "synchronous". It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition. > > > )If you are a relativist, then despite your answer "Yes", you don't! If you'd like to, then take a look at A Flower for Einstein.) > > Sounds like a book worth reading. It is! If you'd like me to attach a copy to an email letter to you, let me know and i will send it. glird
From: glird on 28 Oct 2009 17:37 On Oct 24, 8:09 pm, "Inertial" wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote > > > On Oct 13, 7:58 pm, PD wrote: > > >> < Waves do not come from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the shore. This is experimentally confirmed. It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from where they were generated, not from where the source goes. > > > > Please provide the name of any experiment that confirms that photons EXIST between the origin of a light wave and its arrival at a reactive target. (If you can't, then your conclusion is not based on experimental evidence.) > > AFAIK we have no way of know whether photons exist when undetected. Because to know if they exist, you have to detect them. > Agreed! > It could be that what we see as a photon is something that happens when the EM wave interacts with something else .. an artifact of the interaction. > That is PRECISELY right!! > ... Of course, we do know that other particles, that we know do exist, exhibit behaviour similar to photons. ie they behave as both waves and particles. eg electrons in double-slit experiments. But I guess again, one could claim that when they aren't interacting, they are no longer particles, but are actually only waves. > Right again!!! (Including electrons, but not protons, which are particles that spin on their own axes. (An electron in an atom is actually a wave system moving in a circular path whose length is 2 pi r in which r is the radius of the outer layer of that atom. It does NOT spin on its own non-existing axis.) > The other question is .. does it even MATTER if photons exist when they aren't interacting with anything else?? . Allied question: Does it even matter if a quantum of energy exists when light is radiating through a space between emitting and absorbing atoms? (To physicists, No, To them, the fact that a quantum of energy is equal to 2 pi r m c' is sufficient, even if tho=ey are ignorant of what c' and m and r physically are. To those of us who'd like to UNDERSTAND what our equations are saying and WHY they work, the answer is "YES!!!!!!"! glird
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 17:55 On Oct 28, 11:02 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > > > > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > > > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > > > > > entrained by the Earth. > > > > > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > > > > > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > > > > > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > > > > > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > > > > > motion of the ruler. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > > > and countless others looked for and did not find? > > > > That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to > > > realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the > > > vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka > > > experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion > > > in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > > > You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental > > > > support if you so choose. > > > > It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show > > > that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of > > > light is isotropic horizontally. > > > > Ken seto > > > The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They > > found a gravitational redshift. > > Gravitational redshift is due to a change in the arrival of the speed > of light when the wavelength of the source is defined as a universal > constant. > > > > > This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The > > aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is > > stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B' > > are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and > > A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M > > simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously: > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > Sure if you have separates sources for M and M' then they will detect > simultaneity for their sources. Why Because the speed of light is > isotropic in both frames. > > > > > If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves > > travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether. > > If A/A' is a single source and B/B' is a single source M will detect > the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously at time (L/c) second and > M will predict that M' will detect that the light fronts will arrive > at M' simultaneously at time (gamma*L/c). > > Ken seto > Think of it this way. Superimpose the two frames in my animation. With your concept of inertial frames, there is no difference in the animation as it is, or if the two frames were one on top of the other. The light from A and B would reach M and the light from A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously in all frames of reference. > > > > > > I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I > > > > am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, > > > > waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. > > > > > In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble > > > > into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same > > > > speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. > > > > > If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the > > > > center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in > > > > all directions relative to the point on the embankment. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest > > > > relative to the K' system. > > > > > In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest > > > > relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike > > > > occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at > > > > 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave > > > > propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers.. > > > > A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels > > > > from to ANY observer. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest > > > > relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ > > > > A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward > > > > from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A > > > > and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Inertial on 28 Oct 2009 18:09 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:dfdb2b33-2242-4cf2-a83b-953c751dc870(a)k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote: >> "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote >> >> > On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated >> >> events? >> >> > An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of >> > a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"? >> >> Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should >> behave, given the second postulate. > If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will > always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different > times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right. > Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as > long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both > directions, you can synchronise clocks with it. That's right > That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Yes it is .. it means exactly that. > Here's what > it actually means: > IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, Light is c in all inertial frames .. there is no reference to any fixed 'whatever' (usually called aether) > then your > definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space, That 'space' (frame) doesn't exist in SR. There is no unique frame which is the only one in which light travels at c > then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of > motion and at c+v in the return direction, Except that doesn't happen in SR due to the second postulate. That is why I said it is the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate. > Givwn that, as in > Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per > successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for > them to be "synchronous". > It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as > constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually > synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition. No .. they are synchronous by any constant speed signal as described.. >> >> > )If you are a relativist, then despite your answer "Yes", you don't! >> > If you'd like to, then take a look at A Flower for Einstein.) >> >> Sounds like a book worth reading. > > It is! If you'd like me to attach a copy to an email letter to you, > let me know and i will send it. Can you provide a link .. or maybe I cna go hunting for it
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 18:19
On Oct 28, 6:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:dfdb2b33-2242-4cf2-a83b-953c751dc870(a)k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote: > >> "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote > > >> > On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated > >> >> events? > > >> > An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of > >> > a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"? > > >> Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should > >> behave, given the second postulate. > > If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will > > always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different > > times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right. > > Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as > > long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both > > directions, you can synchronise clocks with it. > > That's right > > > That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! > > Yes it is .. it means exactly that. > > > Here's what > > it actually means: > > IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, > > Light is c in all inertial frames .. there is no reference to any fixed > 'whatever' (usually called aether) > Of course there is. Light waves travel at 'c' relative to the aether. > > then your > > definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space, > > That 'space' (frame) doesn't exist in SR. That's why SR is incorrect. > There is no unique frame which is the only one in which light travels at c > The aether is not a frozen solid. The aether moves as any medium does. If you drop a pebble into a pool within a pool. The ripple will propagate outward under the influence of the water in the inner pool. As the ripple exits the inner pool it will be under the influence of the water in the outer pool. This is how light waves behave. This is how light from a binary star works. The light wave of a star is under the influence of the star's entrained aether. Soon after being emitted by the star, the light wave is under the influence of the entrained aether created by both stars. > > then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of > > motion and at c+v in the return direction, > > Except that doesn't happen in SR due to the second postulate. > > That is why I said it is the only possible definition for how synchronous > clocks should behave, given the second postulate. > > > Givwn that, as in > > Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per > > successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for > > them to be "synchronous". > > It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as > > constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually > > synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition. > > No .. they are synchronous by any constant speed signal as described.. > > > > >> > )If you are a relativist, then despite your answer "Yes", you don't! > >> > If you'd like to, then take a look at A Flower for Einstein.) > > >> Sounds like a book worth reading. > > > It is! If you'd like me to attach a copy to an email letter to you, > > let me know and i will send it. > > Can you provide a link .. or maybe I cna go hunting for it |